Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

MEADOR v. HAMMER, 2:11:cv-3342 LKK AC P. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140627925 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2014
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE, District Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with retained counsel who seeks relief in a civil rights action. By Order filed on June 17, 2014, hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 72) was continued from June 18, 2014 to July 2, 2014 due to plaintiff's lack of compliance with the applicable Local Rules. ECF No. 77. Plaintiff was ordered to provide, no later than June 25, 2014: (1) his response to defendants' statement of undisputed fact
More

ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, District Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with retained counsel who seeks relief in a civil rights action. By Order filed on June 17, 2014, hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 72) was continued from June 18, 2014 to July 2, 2014 due to plaintiff's lack of compliance with the applicable Local Rules. ECF No. 77. Plaintiff was ordered to provide, no later than June 25, 2014: (1) his response to defendants' statement of undisputed facts, as required by L.R. 260(b), and (2) the entirety of any depositions from which excerpted testimony was offered in opposition to summary judgment, as required by L.R. 133 (j). Plaintiff was also afforded the opportunity to file a Statement of Disputed Facts in compliance with Local Rule 260(b).

On June 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of lodging the deposition transcripts. ECF No. 78. However, plaintiff has not filed the requisite response to defendants' statement of undisputed facts.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment set for July 2, 2014 is hereby VACATED from the court's calendar;

2. Plaintiff must file a response to defendants' statement of undisputed facts in compliance with L.R. 260(b) by June 30, 2014;

3. Plaintiff must also by June 30, 2014 show good cause why sanctions should not be imposed upon counsel for failure to comply with the Local Rules and this court's order.

4. Upon review of plaintiff's submissions, the court will either re-set the matter for hearing or order the motion submitted on the papers.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer